Confessions of a Hoosier Democrat

Blogging Indiana Politics and the 2008 Presidential Race.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Responses to Sen Bayh's Iran stance

Mr Smiley from Indianapolis took exception to Sen Bayh's column...

In Sen. Evan Bayh's Feb. 12 My View, "Time to take a hard line on Iran's regime," he says that Iran is actively seeking to obtain nuclear weapons and proposes isolating Iran economically, politically and culturally. But this policy of U.S. bullying through economic sanctions has caused the rest of the world to hate America. I agree with Bayh that the current reactionary regime in Iran is playing a foolish political game, but Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and our European allies are using the situation to advance colonial policies in the Middle East.

Instead of encouraging confrontation, Bayh should demand the Bush administration and the Iranian regime return to the negotiating table with the object of conflict resolution instead of empty rhetoric. Indeed, the Democratic Party must not allow the Bush administration to dictate the terms of negotiations with Iran.
Well... that's all well and good and in a world where the sky is blue and all eyeglasses are rose-colored that may work. But we've been "demanding" they talk for a long time... and they say that they want to use it for "peaceful purposes" while at the same time saying that one of their neighbors should we wiped off the face of the Earth. Do YOU trust Iran? I sure as hell don't.
Mr. Byers of Carmel wrote in:
Bayh couldn't lead Dems to be tough on terror

I'm not buying Evan Bayh's presidential posturing. In his My View on Feb. 12 he tried to convince voters he could be tough with Iran today by reaching back more than 40 years to the Cuban missile crisis for an example of Democratic toughness in standing up to bullies. Is that the best he can do? Unfortunately for Democrats, I think it is.

Bayh is a great guy, but if he were to be a tough president in the war on terror, he would be out of step with the rest of his party. He has to convince us what he would do now to stop Iran, not just criticize the Bush administration for waiting too long to use diplomacy.

Is Bayh capable of leading his party to support a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities when, in all likelihood, the United Nations and other diplomatic posturing fails? I might be able to convince myself that a President Bayh would have what it takes to make these decisions. I have no faith he can convince enough Democrats to follow him. That's why in his run for the White House, I'm not Bayhing.

Did Mr. Byers read the article? Sen Bayh listed 3-4 things he would do... And he's trying the lead the Democrats out of the pit of "soft of security"... He seems to think Sen Bayh is right, but no one will follow him. Well I'm standing behind him and I know a lot of other people are too. Here's a hint. Someone can't be a good leader if you aren't willing to follow. If you like what he's staying, stand up and get behind him and be an example.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home